In the United States, the right to vote is heralded as a cornerstone of democracy, in which every citizen can access the ballot box. However, recent legislation in Alabama has cast a shadow over this fundamental right, prompting a fierce legal battle to uphold the principles of democracy and accessibility in the electoral process. Alabama Senate Bill SB1 imposes stringent restrictions on absentee ballot assistance. The new law imposes misdemeanor penalties for returning someone else’s ballot application or distributing an absentee ballot application containing a voter’s personal data, like their name. The payment of someone to distribute, order, collect, deliver, finish, or prefill another person’s absentee ballot application is a felony act that carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence. Aimed at combating “ballot harvesting,” a type of voter fraud that involves submitting completed ballots by third-party individuals rather than by voters themselves, the legislation criminalizes certain forms of aid provided to vulnerable voters, including the blind, disabled, and illiterate, who rely on assistance to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Extensive research, however, shows that voter impersonation is essentially nonexistent, fraud is extremely rare, and many purported cases of fraud are actually errors made by administrators or voters. The Brennan Center’s seminal report, The Truth About Voter Fraud, conclusively demonstrated that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless and that most of the few remaining allegations reveal irregularities and other forms of election misconduct.
Image 2: Voting Rights Act of 1965 plaque in Alabama. Source: Yahoo Images
Historical Context
The restrictions that accompany this new law not only infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights but also perpetuate a legacy of voter suppression that has long plagued Alabama’s electoral system. This has been rooted in the state’s constitution since 1901. When delegates gathered to rewrite the constitution, Chairman John Knox opened the proceedings, saying their goal was “to establish white supremacy in this state.” During Jim Crow segregation, Alabama implemented numerous laws and practices to disenfranchise Black voters. These discriminatory practices included poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, which limited Black people’s right to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed as a result of the first failed march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, which was called “Bloody Sunday” and concluded with an attack on protesters. There have been several instances in Alabama’s history that contributed to systemic voter suppression.
Since then, there have been various forms of voter disenfranchisement in terms of redistricting, strict voter ID laws, and lack of accessibility for absentee voting. In Alabama, absentee voting is allowed only with a specific excuse. Voters must expect to be away from their county on Election Day, have a physical disability, or be scheduled to work a shift of 10 or more hours on Election Day to request an absentee ballot. This policy is completely unnecessary and imposes outdated, inconvenient restrictions on eligible voters. The challenges faced by low-income individuals, rural communities, Black Alabamans, the elderly, and those with disabilities have only worsened as a result of Alabama’s inability to enact these reforms. The lack of accessibility in Alabama’s election system was not intended with these marginalized populations in mind.
Image 3: Disabled person waiting in line to vote. Source: Yahoo Images
Implications
SB1 adds to these restrictions because now people who have a valid excuse, such as a disability, are penalized for using absentee ballots. One of the law’s key provisions prohibits individuals from assisting others with absentee ballots, criminalizing acts as benign as providing a stamp or sticker to a neighbor in need. Due to restricted transit alternatives or physical disabilities, voting is already difficult for many residents, such as homebound individuals, retirees, and the elderly. This is designed with a blatant disregard for vulnerable voting groups under the pretense of preventing voter fraud. Allowing this form of blanket prohibition not only undermines the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which sought to remove barriers to voting for marginalized communities, but also stifles the efforts of grassroots organizations striving to empower voters.
Alabama’s law creates new hurdles to voting, escalates already-existing inequities, and criminalizes assistance that helps marginalized voters participate in the political process. Enacted amidst heightened partisan tension due to the 2024 presidential election, the law has sparked widespread condemnation from civil rights organizations and voting advocacy groups. The Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program are A few years ago, a similar case was presented to the US Supreme Court, Milligan v. Allen, in which a coalition of civil rights organizations sued against the state’s enacted congressional redistricting, stating it was racial gerrymandering, the map-drawing process was intentionally used to benefit a particular race. The Court upheld the district court’s decision and required Alabama to create a second majority Black congressional district in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Image 4: Protest sign that urges for protecting voting rights. Source: Yahoo Images
Final Thoughts
This problem goes beyond party politics and touches on democracy. Regardless of circumstances, everyone deserves unrestricted access to the ballot box in a country built on equality and freedom. The court dispute is a harrowing reminder of the continuous fight to preserve voting rights and protect democratic principles for future generations as it plays out. SB1 perpetuates obstacles that Alabamians with disabilities, the elderly, and home-bound individuals encounter daily. These people oftentimes have to travel further, wait in longer lines, and jump through more bureaucratic hoops than other people. Absentee voting increases accessibility, allowing these voters’ voices to be heard. Restrictive legislation like this is designed to keep eligible voters out of the voting booth. Twenty-eight states already have no excuse for absentee voting in place for November. Criminalizing assistance that provides access to the voting process to others limits participation for Alabama’s most vulnerable citizens.
Voter fraud is wrong, but rather than enacting laws that will make it more difficult for millions of eligible Americans to exercise their right to vote, we should focus on finding answers to real issues. All Alabama citizens need to be able to vote in the November election, and they need to be able to trust the results. This can be achieved by countering the misinformation about mail-in/absentee voting. Instead of passing SB1, voters must appeal to Congress to supply the necessary funds to help states with less experience processing absentee ballots. Voter fraud is a serious issue; however, the right to vote is a Constitutional right enshrined in this country’s foundation. Before preventing any fraud, protecting all citizen’s right to vote should be paramount. Despite all the obstacles in this unprecedented moment, Americans will vote this year, possibly in record numbers. It’s not a matter of whether tens of millions will do so by mail but whether they will have their voices heard.
Haitis political challenges can be traced back to its revolutionary past. Following independence, the country faced the daunting task of establishing a functional government amid the ruins of colonial rule. The unmountable debt given to the Country of Haiti from its former colonial power, France, coupled with internal power struggles, set the stage for a volatile political environment that persists.
Haiti has a long history of corrupt leaders, the most notorious of whom were Francois Duvalier, also known as Papa Doc, and his son Jean Claude-Duvalier (Baby Doc), who ruled the country from the 1950s to the 1980s. The Duvalier family was known for its extravagant spending and mishandling of Haiti’s funds. Their regime was characterized by authoritarianism and totalitarian rule, and they used techniques such as extortion, repression, and embezzlement of government funds to maintain their grip on power.
Following the reign of the Duvaliers in Haiti, the country became even more susceptible to natural disasters, especially earthquakes and hurricanes, which further increased its economic vulnerabilities. The devastating earthquake that occurred in 2010 drew attention to the precariousness of Haiti’s infrastructure, leading to widespread destruction and loss of life. The subsequent challenges in rebuilding efforts imposed additional strain on the nations already fragile economy, further impeding its capacity to provide essential services and support its citizens. The earthquake has left many citizens, even years later, without stable housing or work.
Since then, Haitis government has experienced numerous periods of political instability, marked by changes in leadership, coup d’états, and challenges to governance structures. Frequent government changes have hindered the establishment of long-term policies and sustainable development initiatives.
Armed soldiers running away from protestors. Credit: Richard Pierrin/Getty Images
Present Crisis
Civil unrest was ignited in Haiti in 2018 when the government announced its intention to eliminate fuel subsidies. The situation was further exacerbated by several contributing factors, including the misuse of loans from Venezuela, social inequality, substandard living conditions, and, well into 2020, the poor management of the COVID-19 pandemic. President Jovenel Moïse faced criticism for seeking to extend his term amid allegations of police brutality, human rights abuses, and violence against protesters. Following Moïses assassination in 2021, the country’s period of crisis has only been exacerbated.
The country has been overrun with gangs and has excelled to new levels, with the gangs taking over and now moving into the country capital, Port Au Prince, a prison near the country capital, and letting out 4,000 prisoners. Many of the country cities were already not safe due to brutal violence such as sexual assault and killings happening daily. Two hundred thousand plus citizens have been displaced from their homes due to the escalating violence. Haiti is home to over 4 million citizens, but the number of police in the country is around 13,000. This massive imbalance of police to citizens has made it very hard for Haitis Political Officials to establish any order within the country.
A white building with domed roofs and a green gate. Credit: Wikipedia
State of Emergency
Haiti declared a State of Emergency on March 3rd, The United States evacuated its Embassy, and the Regional leaders of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) held an emergency summit to discuss the Haiti crisis and establish a framework for a stable political transition. Furthermore, the President of Guyana, Irfaan Ali, commented on the meeting and let it be known that at the summit, plans were agreed upon to create a 7 to 9-member transitional government comprised of Haiti’s major political parties. The council will be in place and responsible for selecting a new prime minister. Recently, According to NBC News, the council has stated that its creation is almost complete. The group hopes to restore Haiti and put it back on the path to legitimate democracy.
According to Al Jazeera, over 200 gangs are operating in Haiti, with two of the most extensive coalitions claiming Port-Au-Prince as their territory. The most infamous and the one who is making news waves is the leader Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherizer of the G9 gang, a former Haiti police officer who has been pushing for the resignation of Haiti Prime Minister Ariel Henry, whom former President Moise appointed. As of March 12, 2024, at the height of the violence and within days of the country calling for a state of emergency, Prime Minister Ariel Henry announced that he would be stepping down and “leave immediately after the inauguration of a new council.” However, Jimmy Barbecue does not like the idea and will resist the implementation unless he is given a seat at the council table. He has stated that the corruption of the “traditional politicians” has not done Haiti any good and are the ones “damaging the country.”
Since the state of emergency was announced the United Nations has estimated that 53,000 Haitians have fled the capital of Port-Au-Prince in March. Also, 1.64 million men, women, and children are facing severe acute malnutrition due to the rise of gang violence has only exacerbated the crisis. The percentage of those who rely on humanitarian aide for food has only increased. Before the crisis, Haiti’s urban and rural communities had long relied on their city and town markets, which are sustained mainly by the work of Madan Saras, the women of Haiti who buy, distribute, and sell food and other essentials in these markets, serving as the lifeline of the communities. Still, unfortunately, they have become targets for gang violence, especially in recent times. The gangs seek to assert their power over the towns, and thus, the markets have become a hotbed of criminal activity, which has contributed to the decimation of Haiti’s economy. This is just one example among many of the challenges the people of Haiti face.
A group of people holding a flag. Credit: Guerinault Louis / Anadolu via Getty Images
Path of Uncertainty
Still, despite the council’s creation, a finalized plan has yet to be developed to assure Haiti and its citizens of a peaceful and stable environment. Kenya’s plans to assist the country and bring in military aid have been stalled, and the country’s future is uncertain. The government has been distressed for many years, and the plan to restore stability will require continued effort.
Several organizations are assisting the people of Haiti in the amid unrest. Here are a few of them:
Samuel Walker proposes that America has two crime problems, one affecting most white, middle-class Americans and another affecting mostly people of color in poverty. Racial bias has been expressed in drug policy for centuries and has not ceased to marginalize certain racial and ethnic minorities. Chinese immigrants have been historically discriminated against in the United States and have not ceased to face racism in everyday life, especially after being associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Bias has not only affected drug policy over time, but drug policy has reiterated this bias.
Stigma refers to a negative attitude toward a particular group of people, which is usually unfair and leads to discrimination. Stigma can be both explicitly expressed, like thinking people with mental health conditions are dangerous, and subtly embedded in societal norms, like repeatedly showing people of certain groups in the media in negative situations. Labeling someone in a positive or negative way is an easy solution to avoid the toll of understanding the challenges they are experiencing. Stigma is hugely based on social identity and perception of other groups, in that negatively stigmatizing other groups can be a way to justify inequalities in one’s own privilege compared to others.
Understanding stigma toward other social identities is especially important in the context of historical and present drug policy. In this series of blogs, I will explore some important historical examples of how stigma against minority groups has been embedded in American drug sentiment. Throughout this series, I will review the opium trade and Chinese repression, the criminalization of marijuana and Mexican immigrants, the unequal playing field of the hippie counterculture movement and the Indigenous Peyote movement, and the controversy over racial disparities in crack and cocaine sentencing. I hope to offer new perspectives on how targeting and incarcerating drug users has resulted in challenges specifically for minority groups, and how stigma hurts in the criminal justice system.
Outlining the Opium Wars in China
An early point to recognize in the development of drug prohibition was the Opium Wars in China and their effects on the criminalization of Chinese immigrants, especially in the US. This example importantly impacted policies on opiates, the term for the chemicals found naturally and refined into heroin, morphine, and codeine. These variations are derived and created from opium, a depressant drug from the sap of the opium poppy plant. Opioids can refer to both naturally derived opium and its variations syntheticallymade in the laboratory, like oxycodone and hydrocodone (partly synthetic) or tramadol and fentanyl (fully synthetic). As a medication, opium is meant to be used for pain control, but smoking opium causes euphoric effects almost immediately since the chemicals are instantly absorbed through the lungs and to the brain. The coming of opium smoking to the US created very toxic discrimination by those in privilege against Chinese immigrants, leading to blatant policies against Chinese people in poverty, even when the opium frenzy that followed was far from their goal.
An image of a woman and two children picking the opium poppy fields grown in Old China around 1900. Source: Yahoo Images via Flickr. The cultivation of opium increased substantially after the Opium Wars strongly shifted China’s economy.
In the 1700s, opium poppy fields in India were conquered by the British Empire and smuggled into China for profit. Even though China banned the opium trade in 1729, the illegal sale of the drug by outside nations caused an addiction epidemic and devastating economic consequences. In the Opium Wars, the Qing Dynasty attempted to fight against opium importation, but the British consistently gained more power over trafficking and forced China to make the opium trade legal by 1860. China had imported tea through the East India Company to Britain for many years, but it no longer appealed to Britain’s trade options, and this was detrimental to trade. As Britain ran out of silver to maintain the tea trade, the East India Company found that opium could be sourced in bulk from China, which led to a growing and promising market. The East India Company did not initially create the demand for opium but found a way to maximize the economic disruption and addiction in China for the benefit of trade.
Opium was then trafficked increasingly and was effectively destructive to the Chinese. For example, for the British to get their fix of caffeine, the Chinese got their fix of opium. The drug was sold and medicalized to merchants around the world, notably America, which played a significant role in finding new sources of supply from China and expanding the opium market until 1840. In Chinese culture, smoking opium was initially a ritual luxury that was used to display privilege, but as it became more accessible, the government was less concerned with controlling its pharmacological effects and more with controlling the social deviance associated with it. The Opium Wars ended in an unequal trading arrangement in Europe’s favor, continuing importation and causing the market to become socially segmented. Depending on their wealth, people bought different varieties of opium. However, addiction did not discriminate by wealth.
Judging Drugs by Culture
When many Chinese immigrants came to the US in the mid-1800s, primarily to escape the social and economic devastation brought upon them by the Opium Wars, they were an easy scapegoat for US politicians to blame for the internationally emerging opium crisis. Opium smoking, as well as poverty, was popular among them, so many started businesses of their own, including Opium Dens. These were hidden places to smoke without social consequences, popular in San Francisco, and were typically run by Chinese immigrants, though people of all backgrounds could be found there. These dens were compared to sin and hell, which only increased the already pervasive anti-Chinese sentiment. There was popularity in claims that vulnerable white women who entered the dens were manipulated and their honor surrendered by Chinese men. Males made up 95% of Chinese immigrants in the late 19th century, working for the few available jobs amid the great depression, leading to strong discriminatory sentiment among Americans affected by unemployment, such as referring to cheap laborers as ‘opium fiends.’
An image of two men inside an opium den run by Chinese immigrants in San Francisco in 1898. Source: Yahoo Images via Flickr. Opium users sit and lay relaxing on the floor of a small and organized Opium Den, wearing traditional Chinese clothing and smoking the drug through a pipe next to a tray of materials.
A drawing of an opium den with several Chinese men appearing delirious and their surroundings unclean. Opium Dens were commonly perceived as disgusting places when many were well-kept and included people of different backgrounds. Source: Yahoo Images via Uncyclopedia. Several Chinese immigrants sit beside each other inside a dark and smoky Opium Den, some of them passed out or laid back.
Chinese people were at first welcomed by some Americans as “the most industrious, quiet, patient people among us,” by a California newspaper in 1852. Still, tensions rose at the same time that immigrants started impacting opium use and the workforce. Policies on opium reflect xenophobia and racism, perpetuating fear of the ‘yellow peril,’ a racist color metaphor in American campaigns disguised as ‘anti-drug.’To further conceptualize racism in politics during this time, the California Supreme Court case People v. Hall in 1854 categorized several racial and ethnic minorities as lacking the progress or development to testify against White people. Even if states did not blatantly pass these laws, Chinese people would be dismissed as liars before even speaking for themselves. This pervasiveness made it impossible for Chinese immigrants to seek justice against the severe discrimination and bias of the drug wars or practically any repressive measures they were subjected to. With the completion of the railroad in 1869, thousands of Chinese people were out of work, denied access to jobs, and targeted as competition as soon as they began to succeed.
An image of a political cartoon describing the exclusion of Chinese immigrants, pushing them away from San Francisco back to China. A Chinese man flees from the American market competition while clutching a stepping stool and a container of opium. Source: Yahoo Images via History1700s. With the quote “the Chinese must go,” an American figure with long legs labeled ‘the Missouri Steam Washer’ chases away a Chinese man representing the competition of immigrant businesses. The fleeing man clutches a stool and a container of opium.
By the 1870s, it became apparent that many individuals, including white people, were picking up on opiate addiction. Opium use had increased alarmingly by the 1880s across the American medical field as well, and this led to criticism of Chinese immigrants by people who saw their fellow Americans as plagued by a disgusting habit. When more others were associated with Chinese people in this way, the criminalization of Chinese people represented a shift in focus toward protecting the perceived integrity of white people. For example, the San Francisco Opium Den Ordinance in 1875 made it illegal to maintain or visit places where opium was smoked, so many Chinese people and their neighborhoods were criminalized. Essentially, the US passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which was the first major federal legislation to explicitly restrict immigration for a specific nationality. This meant pushing Chinese people away from the US even when they were producing the backbone of American railroad labor and only making up 0.002% of the population at that time.
An image of US Marshals burning opium and opium pipes resulting from an Opium Den raid in the middle of a crowded Chinatown street. Source: Yahoo Images via FoundSF. A group of US Marshals stands close by a pile of opium and smoking materials to be burned on a busy Chinatown street while hundreds of people surround and watch.
Parallels of Criminalization and Overprescription
The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act in 1909 continued to ban the possession, use, and importation of opium for smoking, being the first federal law to ban the non-medical use of a substance. Even though opioids were rampantly prescribed and available in America by this time, the criminalization only applied to smoking opium, primarily done by Chinese immigrants in Chinatowns. Contrary to assumptions, it is not illegal drug cartels but pharmaceutical companies that fueled the opioid epidemic. For example, many Union soldiers in the Civil War returned home addicted to opium pills or needing treatment only possible by hypodermic syringes, which had become widely overused by both doctors and addicts due to their powerful relieving abilities. Male doctors prescribed morphine for women’s menstrual cramps, and it was even infused into syrup to soothe teething babies who became addicted. This was known as the ‘Poor Child’s Nurse,’ since the drug often led to infant death by starvation when sold as a medicine to calm hungry babies. In a broad sense, depending on or relating to one’s racial or ethnic community, opioids were regulated differently.
When narcotic sales were banned in 1923, this forced many addicts subjected to this overprescription to buy illegally from the thriving black markets, especially in Chinatowns, again criminalizing Chinese people. Countless doctors warned and panicked over the rising commonality of addictiveness in opiates as early as 1833, and opium was rapidly synthesized by scientists all over the world into more dangerous variations. When problems with addiction to medicalized opioid variations spun out of control, the US blamed Chinese immigrants rather than consulting with the professional field to avoid harm in the irresponsible dispersion of highly addictive drugs. Instead of dispersing research on the new and dangerous variations, opium smoking was specifically centralized, with opium being generalized into street names like ‘Chinese molasses’ or ‘Chinese tobacco.’
The narrative of opioid addicts was changed when opioid abuse rose among white people, and by this, I mean both the attitudes toward addiction and the actions taken to solve it. Framing addiction as a disease rather than a disgusting crime came when it was no longer just people of color getting in trouble. The idea of pharmaceutical treatments for drug abuse came when it was white people suffering and dying from the opioid epidemic. Meanwhile, opium ordinances had a heavy burden on the incarceration and continued detainment and deportation of Chinese people in the United States especially before accurate research was done. Repression was tied to opium but also purposely deprived Chinese immigrants of opportunities to succeed and created criminalized reputations among their communities. Despite its age, the history of the Opium Wars and its impact on societal discrimination in America is not a point to be missed when considering drug stigmatization.
Content warning: This blog contains references to violence and murder.
Introduction
The femicide crisis in Mexico can be best exemplified in the quote, “What is happening in Mexico is a gigantic tragedy, a humanitarian catastrophe”—a statement made by Lucy Diaz Genao, a representative of Colectivo Solecitos (Sunshine Collective). Colectivo Solecitos is a group of women searching for their disappeared relatives, known as madre buscadoras.
Genao is not overstating her concern for the issues in Mexico, as every year more and more people, mostly women and children, are reported missing with little to no action done by government officials to find them. Every day, approximately ten women are murdered, resulting in a staggering 3,754 deaths in 2022. These deaths are rarely investigated as femicide, with less than a third of them given the proper acknowledgment that they deserve. Not only are they not presented as femicide, but they are also often presented as accidental, with manslaughter being the most frequent classification. It is possible that this misrepresentation is done so that the Mexican government can downplay the severity of femicide within the country. There are countless factors perpetuating the violence against women in Mexico, with some of the major reasons being cultural machismo, domestic violence issues, and a flawed justice system.
Image Description: A large pink banner with “En Busca De Nuestros Corazones” and “Madres Buscadores” written across the middle. There are many images of disappeared people. Source: Flickr
A Flawed Justice System
The flaws in the justice system are numerous, with some major problems being insecure crime scenes and the removal of objects that could be evidence in cases. One specific occasion of this is with Diana Velázquez. Velázques was killed after numerous brutalities were committed against her—both physical and sexual—and then her body was abandoned by a warehouse. The investigation was quickly mishandled when Veláquez’s body was misidentified as a man. This is obviously problematic in many ways, one of which is that Veláquez’s family could not find her for some time. When she was finally found, she was heavily decomposing on the patio of a morgue. While these factors are more than enough to emphasize the missteps within the justice system, the mismanagement of the case does not end there. Authorities lost Veláquez’s clothing, which was vital in collecting DNA and identifying her killer. Her family got minimal closure, and because of the flaws in the investigation, only one suspect was apprehended and convicted.
This is one case out of thousands as the violence against women comes in shocking waves. The crimes are handled so poorly that it incentivizes individuals to continue committing acts of violence. It is vital for the Mexican government to take a firm stance against femicide and provide more cohesive measures to prevent and punish the murders.
Gender-based violence is not new in concept; however, femicide is new in terms of legal codes in Mexico, and it was first made a distinct crime category in 2012. This demonstrates progress, but the negative implications of it being so recent are numerous. For one, there is little uniformity in this classification, so many femicides may go undocumented as such. The incorrect documentation of the crime underemphasizes the problem, and it encourages those in law enforcement to put less focus on the roots of the problem, like machismo culture and domestic violence.
Machismo Culture and Domestic Violence
Mexico’s machismo culture is another large factor attributing to the abundance of femicides in the country. Machismo is “the set of ideals and beliefs that support the notion that men are superior to women. Men…must protect the vulnerable, usually by exercising control over women.”. This forces women into a more subordinate role and allows men to enforce their dominance. Gender discrimination leads directly to gender violence, and gender violence rooted in patriarchy has been increasing steadily every year.
Women are stuck living in fear, as their perpetrators are often given minimal sentencing if prosecuted at all. Domestic violence perpetrators are given much lower sentencing than those who commit murder or femicide, so women are often left to face their abuser after the sentencing.
These gender biases amongst judges and prosecutors also lead to victims gaining little to no protection. Described as “institutional neglect” by journalist Gloria Piña, Piña laments, “There are no legal consequences for killing women, [and] the State will do nothing to financially take care of victims.” This state-based discrimination dissuades victims from coming forward, as it will often just result in angering their significant other. Exorbitant fines prevent women from speaking up, so why waste money on a legal process that will result in no justice?
Unique Violence of Femicide
Femicide needs a significant increase in attention from law enforcement and government officials; however, it is not overlooked by the general public. There are major demonstrations throughout the country, happening at least once a week. There are also annual marches honoring International Women’s Day in March. Women have been participating in strikes to fight against gender-based violence in Mexico, but we need the government to intervene.
Image Description: two young women in focus at a rally, they both have hand-prints painted on their faces. Source: Flickr
The homicide rate in Mexico is high, but femicides are uniquely violent. Most killings in Mexico are done with a firearm, but only 21% of femicides are committed with a gun. Most are done by strangulation, suffocation, drowning, knives, and other brutal acts. This emphasizes the personal nature of femicide, and it illustrates how men are able to commit these crimes in more intimate ways, as many of them live with the woman they end up murdering.
Conclusions
The brutality of femicide brings all the elements discussed in this post together—it begins with the machismo culture of Mexico. This allows men to feel superior to women, which leads to physical violence against them. This physical violence is forceful and personal, and they are allowed to get away with these actions because of the flawed legal system in Mexico.
Protection for women and children is the first step. If women are guaranteed safety or even provided more security than they are now, the magnitude of gender-based violence will be better able to be understood as more women come forward. A more cohesive jurisdiction will help women not only feel safer but get the closure that they need and deserve. It is time to place emphasis on women’s rights in Mexico, and it is time to bring an end to the brutal killings of women.
Sustainability means a lot of things to many different people, and I view that as a positive thing. One part of sustainability that is usually highlighted is the focus on environmental sustainability, given the real-time effects of climate change. Individuals apply this to their lives in many forms, such as my grandmother, who refuses to throw away food, or my supervisor, who walks to the office.
When talking about sustainability, people are quick to bring up things like recycling or electric vehicles (EVs). In essence, this is the low-hanging fruit (not necessarily in price, but they require the smallest amount of effort or change). These are the simple things that make wealthy people feel better about unhealthy consumption habits. This blog is not intended to point fingers. I want to highlight this black-and-white perspective of sustainability, which is misguided. Still, it remains a popular view in much of the Global North due to inadequate education or pure convenience.
In 2024, we would rather feel good about ourselves for putting plastic bottles in the recycling bin than examine why we are still using single-use plastic bottles. For some, these reasons are significant, as not everyone has access to clean and safe drinking water. For others, not so much. The ultimate truth is that it is more convenient to adapt sustainability into our current habits than to change our habits to be more sustainable. Essentially, this view is a type of “convenient sustainability”—or capitalistic sustainability— and is a bit of an oxymoron, considering that capitalism thrives on maximizing profits at the expense of any consideration of long-term social or environmental sustainability.
I am not here to encourage anyone to stop recycling and refuse to buy only gas automobiles but to challenge them to think about it in a less binary way. At a basic level, most of these choices are better for the environment than the alternatives. However, they do not get to the root of the problem, which, for this blog, is a society dominated by a reliance on automobiles rather than on diverse modes of transportation.
Figure 1: Protest Sign that reads “Capitalism is the Crisis.” Painted sign that reads “Capitalism is the crisis” in black and red text.
Beyond that, the narrative that buying something new will solve climate change is not only false but reinforces the narrative that innovation under capitalism can save us from the repercussions of climate change, which is the same mentality that has gotten us here.
To get to the root of this problem, we must look at different aspects of the life cycle of products to really get at what true sustainability is—not just environmental sustainability but social and economic sustainability, too. In this blog, I will use the case of car overreliance to illustrate true sustainability. Not only is it poor for the environment, but car overreliance also has human rights concerns due to its impacts on air pollution, communities of color, and the global supply chain.
I want to be clear that I do not think it is reasonable to expect us to eradicate the use of automobiles in this country, nor is it necessary. Cars are needed in many rural areas, and the United States is a large country. But in a culture that loves to flaunt the benefits of a free-market system and increasing consumer choice and freedom, why have we accepted that cars are the only option? This acceptance benefits the automobile industry and the fossil fuel industry, even for EVs.
The Rise of the Automobile
It may be difficult to imagine, but automobiles are a relatively new technology, and they are extremely inefficient. The average American automobile spends 95 percent of its life parked, which seems like a crazy statistic at first until you actually think about the amount of time you spend in your car each day.
For the purpose of this blog, I am specifically targeting EVs because they are too often touted as the solution to climate change, especially in the Global North. What I think is most important to note is that this perspective is a privileged one. There are numerous environmental issues that are directly caused by car overreliance, and EVs will not solve most of them.
Automobiles spit out emissions at the street level, which contributes to climate change by releasing carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons by burning gas and diesel. There is also increasing awareness that automobile exhaust is a public health concern. One 2023 study linked breathing in traffic emissions to increased blood pressure of passengers. Other studies have connected air pollution from automobiles with increased rates of cardiovascular disease, asthma, lung cancer, and death. Additionally, a society focused on cars promotes a sedentary lifestyle, which puts people at risk for many of the same conditions caused by the air pollution from tailpipes.
Moreover, a world built around automobiles (and the rise of the suburb) also benefits large corporations and harms local businesses. Since smaller businesses generally operate in smaller (usually more urban) areas rather than in large commercial lots, car-centric design common throughout the suburbs makes it easier for consumers to purchase from large companies. Meanwhile, many small businesses rely on people walking/passing through, which car dependency negatively impacts.
Urban Sprawl
The rise of the automobile is connected with the rise of the suburbs and modern urban sprawl—think driving down Highway 280 in Birmingham at 5:30 PM on a Tuesday. The rise of the suburbs has increased the number of miles per trip and made it convenient to move far away from the cities. Massive amounts of land were developed, displacing wildlife and allowing the wealthy (and predominantly white) to move away from the cities. Studies have linked development with a decrease in biodiversity. While, arguably, this concerns urban and suburban areas, the suburbs take up significantly more space than urban areas (even though they contain far fewer people living in them).
It is a common misconception to think that a rural home with large, spacious fields is the most “environmentally friendly” way to live, with cities being the enemy of true sustainability, largely due to the historical implications of the Industrial Revolution on cities. While living in a rural area is not necessarily bad for the environment, cities are vastly more efficient from a space perspective, and much of that is because of the diversification of transportation (though this depends on the city).
Much of what I am describing is the ideal end result of success through the American Dream. It focuses on economic prosperity and the goal of owning property and raising a family. It’s no secret that the idea of upward mobility being accessible to all is inaccurate. Aside from that, it can take time before we think about the cost of all of this.
Figure 2: Protesters organizing against the construction of a highway. Source: Yahoo Images. A black and white photo shows individuals marching in a protest against the construction of a highway.
Connection to Human Rights Domestically
Besides the consequences of that for human health we’ve already talked about, overreliance on automobiles exacerbates the already high inequity within the United States. The US Department of Transportation estimates that the construction of the interstate system displaced over 1 million people when it was built starting in the late 1950s. The system was built to connect the United States, and it did, but it connected some groups more than others and came at a high cost to others. The bulk of the interstate system cut through black and brown communities to cater to white commuters who worked in the city but lived in the suburbs. Not only has infrastructure historically cut through communities of color and impacted the once-flourishing social centers there, but by putting a highway there, it places those same groups of people underneath the emissions pipe of people who drive through there every day.
As for the consequences of this shift on cities? There are numerous. One of the main ones that comes to mind is the issue of parking. On UAB’s (University of Alabama at Birmingham) campus, nearly everyone is dissatisfied with the parking situation. This issue goes back to the inefficiency of the automobile. As mentioned earlier, on average, a car is parked for 95 percent of the time, taking up a square of concrete nine feet wide by 18 feet long. This is problematic for urban areas like Birmingham because the density of jobs and people is so high, yet the amount of space is quite tight. It does not take a civil engineer to recognize how inefficient this is in terms of land usage. This is also problematic when you consider that the majority of the time, all the parking lots are empty—yes, they really are empty most of the time.
In addition to their inefficiency, they impact different communities disproportionately. Parking lots are generally built in, near, or even over communities of color, further degrading property values (and can sometimes make those communities warmer due to the heat island effect). This is also concerning for public health because parks in nonwhite areas are generally about half the size of parks in majority-white areas.
When considering all of this, it is not difficult to see how car-centric infrastructure is a human rights issue in the US, often fueled by racist zoning laws and institutions that seek to capitalize on the manipulation of communities of color.
Figure 3:Parking covers more space than building space in downtown Houston, Texas. Source: Yahoo Images. An aerial view of downtown Houston shows that most of the space is used for parking than for buildings.
Similarly, the modern American driver is dissatisfied with the amount of traffic whenever “everyone else” is taking up all the room on the road. In the United States, there are large cities that are known to have this problem due to their almost complete reliance on automobiles. Houston and Atlanta are primary examples of this, where they have such high populations and poor public transportation to accommodate the large daily movement of people.
In Alabama and many other states, the solution is to add more lanes, which makes traffic worse due to a concept called induced demand. While it may seem that adding another lane would allow more space for people to drive and reduce traffic, adding another lane to an inefficient system makes the existing system more inefficient. Increasing roads by 10% will temporarily improve traffic, but over time, it will increase traffic by 10%, making the problem worse.
Human Rights Violations in Congo
EVs, as you may have realized, do not solve our parking or traffic problems. Beyond that, there are human rights concerns with the global supply chain that make EVs less ideal, too.
With EVs specifically, the lithium batteries require a significant amount of cobalt. The largest reserves of cobalt in the world come from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Copper is also needed for different types of batteries, including cell phone batteries, and it is frequently mined in Congo as well. Unfortunately, families in Congo have been forcibly evicted due to the opening of new cobalt mines. Amnesty International, a global human rights NGO, has accused large companies who are opening these mines of forced evictions, threats, intimidation, and deception of the people who live there.
It is crucial to mention that ethical considerations like this have long been used by the fossil fuel industry to discredit and slow down the movement toward clean energy. It is imperative for the US to curb emissions and shift towards renewable forms of energy. Additionally, automobiles are a significant component of that, making up the largest category at about 29 percent of GHG emissions in the US. Still, it is critical that we do not continue to uphold unjust forms of labor and oppression. It is precisely these systems that have placed the United States as an economic powerhouse through the exploitation of people from other countries, damaging their health and environmental quality for our benefit.
Moving Forward
From an emissions perspective, EVs are a step in the right direction, but they do not begin to touch most of the other issues discussed in this blog, including environmental racism and public health concerns from an automobile-centered society.
EVs won’t solve the parking problem, the traffic problem, the microplastic problem, or the human rights issues associated with the global suppliers that are notoriously secretive about their practices. While they may decrease direct pollution that is linked with all the health conditions I mentioned earlier, they do not erase the damage to the people and countries that are supplying materials for their construction.
What will start to get at the problem is diversifying transportation. While automobiles are needed in many cases, it is extremely exclusive and inefficient to make them the only option, especially in our mid-size and large cities. In some countries, tax dollars fund all transportation infrastructure rather than almost solely funding infrastructure for cars and requiring bike infrastructure to be paid for by private individuals. In the US, most states spent an average of $1.50 to $3 per capita on bike infrastructure.
Improving public transportation in urban areas and between cities, such as through intercity trains, would benefit public health and the environment. It could also be a small start of changing centuries worth of racism and inequity by decreasing pollution and making it so that the people producing the most pollution cannot drive 40 miles outside the city to get away from it.
Investing in public transportation would also improve the lives of people who cannot drive or do not want to. In a car-dominated society, many disabled people and elderly people are forced to rely on others to take them places or pay for expensive Ubers. Giving them the option to travel without the assistance of others, just like everyone who drives themselves to work, is important to preserve their autonomy so they can maintain control over their own life without relying on others.
Car-centric design favors the wealthy and forces the rest of the population to keep up with car payments and insurance, which are quite expensive for the everyday family. According to the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, the average American family’s second highest expenditure (behind housing) is transportation, with 93 percent used for car payments and maintenance. It also favors the automobile companies, which is the biggest reason we do not have diversified transportation (like nearly every other developed country).
The simple truth is that the United States economy benefits from the sale of cars, and changing how we view this is difficult. Changing the infrastructure (and, in some ways, creating it) would not be easy, but it wouldcreate a more inclusive world. To change this, we must make the best decisions and push for improved public transportation, especially in urban areas like Birmingham.
What can we do?
Realistically, no person can change this system individually, and I think that is a large reason why people love talking about EVs and other ways we can individually make an impact.
Overall, wanting to make a difference is a good thing. It is important to pay attention to the companies you purchase from and ensure they are upholding high ethical and sourcing standards. I have mentioned this in previous blog posts, but the best thing to do is to refrain from purchasing unless you truly need it—and even then, try to buy secondhand.
If you do not need a new phone or laptop, do not buy a new one every year. Remember that companies, including the fossil fuel industry, benefit from the mentality that we should all have the newest thing. This is not good for your wallet, and it is especially harmful for the planet and the humans who collect the resources used in things we take for granted every day.
Another thing to consider is reducing your reliance on batteries. I am not saying to throw out all the batteries you may have at home, but to think of it from a purchasing perspective. It is becoming increasingly common for basic household appliances to be battery-powered because they are convenient. For some people, having multiple battery-powered flashlights for camping is a crucial safety measure, but if you need a new appliance for use in your home, be realistic. Batteries are convenient, but do you really need a battery-powered vacuum cleaner or handheld mixer that could be plugged into the electricity grid for use in a home? Given the questionable industries involved in battery production (and their environmental damage when they are not properly disposed of), eliminating the use of battery-powered objects in cases when they are not necessary is a great start.
A Final Note
I cannot finish this blog without mentioning that Birmingham does have a bus system, but it is mostly designed for people who do not have cars. It is designed as a last resort rather than a first choice, which means that users are often viewed negatively for not having a “better” option.
Arguments against diversifying transportation usually include comments that walking or biking is not accessible because things are so far away.
If that is what comes to mind, I’d like you to consider that most major and even mid-size cities (Birmingham included) had expansive public transportation until private car ownership increased from the 1920s to the 1950s. I cannot include them here, but you can find maps of Birmingham’s old streetcar system online.
Many of the tracks are still here, and we drive over them every day without even realizing it.
Beginning in the late 20th century, opioid prescription rates skyrocketed in shocking numbers, and in just over ten years, opioid sales quadrupled. With the introduction of OxyContin into everyday life and medication sales, an opioid that was falsely advertised as non-addictive, as well as pill mills across the United States, millions of people fell into a deadly addiction. As people lost access to prescription opioids, they often turned to more illicit drugs, such as heroin. This was worsened by the prices of heroin going down, making it much easier for people to afford large quantities of the drug. The use of heroin is often looked at as the second wave of the drug crisis, and heroin deaths surpassed prescription drug deaths in 2015. The third wave of the opioid crisis is where we currently reside, and it is characterized by overdose deaths related to synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl.
Connection to Native Americans and Alaskan Natives
The opioid epidemic has been heavily discussed in the past few years; however, it has been occurring for even longer. Opioid usage affects most groups; however, its large-scale detriment to minority race and ethnicity groups is frequently ignored. Native Americans and Alaskan Natives (here referred to as NA/AN) are disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis, and this discrepancy is ignored by many critical groups.
American Indians have the highest drug overdose death rates, and these rates are not stagnant. The CDC reports that overdose deaths have increased by 33% within the last several years. This pattern of drug abuse and overdose is not isolated to adults, as NA/AN youth also struggle with the use of unauthorized prescription painkillers, with some reports showing as many as 11% of high school students using painkillers without explicit orders from their doctors.
There are many factors that cause NA/AN groups to be affected more heavily than other groups, and these include historical trauma, lower educational attainment, lack of easy access to healthcare, housing problems, poverty, unemployment, violence, and mental health issues. In this post, I will choose to focus on two main reasons: lack of easy access to healthcare and mental health issues caused by lost connection to culture.
Health Disparities in NA/AN Communities
NA/AN groups have serious healthcare inconsistencies that must be addressed for these communities to gain adequate support during the opioid crisis. The Indian Health Service (IHS) is a group that provides care to over 2.2 million people, but it is severely underfunded by Congress. As this is one of the main organizations providing healthcare access to NA/AN groups, this underfunding affects millions of lives. To put these funding issues in perspective, funding would have to almost double to match the degree of care provided to federal prisoners, and it would have to increase by even more to equate to Medicaid benefits.
Image of white OxyContin bottle with white pills laid out in front. Source: Flickr
Poor healthcare consistently results in the treatment of symptoms instead of causes, and, unfortunately, this means the prescription of opioids. Whether injuries occur from manual labor, physical activity, or driving accidents, NA/AN individuals are more likely to be treated with opioids as opposed to more effective means of treatment, such as physical therapy. Poor healthcare aligns directly with low-quality insurance or no insurance at all, and opioids are more likely to be prescribed in areas with uninsured people.
Mental Health and Cultural Disconnect
The traumatic history of Native American groups has a massive impact on these overdose rates, as forceful deprivation from culture leads not only to issues such as inadequate healthcare and poverty, but also mental health issues, one cause of opioid treatment, these being direct pathways to opioid addictions.
Mental health issues are incredibly prevalent within NA/AN communities, with suicide rates for them being more than double those for the entire U.S. population. NA/AN individuals are also more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety disorders and PTSD. These mental health conditions, when left untreated or inadequately treated, can often lead to drug abuse. The IHS does provide care for mental health and substance abuse issues; however, the already underfunded organization only uses about 10% of these funds to support substance abuse treatment
These mental health issues can be attributed to many things; however, a major force playing into this is the history of trauma amongst Native Americans. This topic could be one if not several, entire blog posts, but here I will attempt to briefly sum it up. It is important to note that there are around 600 federally recognized tribes, so the experiences of NA/AN individuals can vary greatly. One thing most groups share is a prevalent history of displacement and loss of culture. In the late 19th century, the majority of Native American individuals were forced to relocate to reservations or into urban areas. This resulted in a decline in socioeconomic status, which resulted in poor living and working conditions, as well as heightened health issues, both mental and physical.
It is vital to remember that NA/AN groups are underrepresented in major clinical research studies. This results in the general public being unaware of the true extent of issues within these communities. This underrepresentation in research exacerbates the disparities and can easily result in the continuance of the opioid crisis for Native Americans with little to no acknowledgement from major government parties. Another impact of inadequate research is misconstrued statistics, and it is likely that the opioid crisis is worse for NA/AN groups than scholars anticipate, as overdose cases may be underestimated by as much as 35% due to race miscalculations.
Image of a white hospital room with two bed placed in the center. Source: Flickr.
Creating Change
The first thing that needs to be done in order to improve the worsening opioid crisis in NA/AN areas is to improve funding for the Indian Health Service. The United States Congress must take action and increase funding—the funding in 2022 is less than half of what patients need. With adequate health care, individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues will be able to get the help that they need, and, on the more preventative side, with better care, individuals will be less likely to be prescribed opioids as a substitute for proper treatment.
The second action that needs to be taken is better awareness. There needs to be more research devoted to NA/AN groups, so that we are able to pin down what leads to these heightened addiction statistics. Overall, it is vital for individuals to take personal responsibility and increase their own awareness of the issues. Native Americans have been ignored and mistreated for decades, and this must be remedied in the present.
Financial stress in the home can have negative psychological effects on young children. Source: Yahoo Images
One day, in the cafeteria of my small-town Alabama high school, my friend asked if I could sneak some extra snacks from the cafeteria as I went through the line, “Anything that I can put in my backpack for later.” I wondered why her question was asked so defeatedly but brushed it off as her just wanting some extra Rice Krispies treats. So I hid an extra snack in my pocket and grabbed a banana that I knew I wasn’t going to eat. As we sat down, she reached deep into her pockets and pulled out packs of carrots, an orange juice, two Rice Krispies treats, and an apple, quickly shoving it all in her backpack. I handed her what I had gotten and I didn’t ask any questions. This went on for the rest of the semester and it gradually became clearer that her love for Rice Krispies was not the driving force. Her mom had lost her job, and she had suddenly been hit with something that over 16% of Alabamians are facing: poverty.
In this article, I will lay out some aspects of Alabama’s society based on my research that may correlate to the economic disparity of the state.
Cultural Emphasis on the Free Market
Because of the biodiversity of the state and the emphasis on agriculture, many people have found success and stability in small-scale agricultural labor. When the main means of production in a community are small, family-owned-and-operated farms, most people in society have access to the means of production. Small farmers tend to pay their workers well and keep prices fair in order to compete with the many other small farms. Customers are willing to pay a fair price for the products because they trust that it is good quality due to the competition. This is how many communities in rural Alabama have historically operated, and it has fostered a strong sense of hospitality and community. This research from Auburn University in 1987 shows the cultural perception of farming and agriculture in Alabama at that time. Many people supported small family farms over larger, more industrialized farms. Many of these small farms were focused on manual, hands-on labor, wherein the employees worked closely with the means of production and saw the outcomes of their labor. This is why many people in the South hold onto values of a completely free market, with little regulations on employment, wages, and worker protections. When I mention the “shift in the industry,” I am referring to the shift from hands-on labor working directly with the Earth’s resources to more industrialized factory work and white-collar office jobs.
When the means of production become larger and farther removed from the laborers, this type of economic setup becomes an issue. The shift in industries in which Alabamians make money has privatized the means of production and reduced competition. People now are more likely to work indoors in offices, factories, and businesses, far removed from the means of production of the goods and services that they facilitate. This shift has led to many of the problems of an industrialized unregulated system to show themselves in the economic struggles of Alabamians. Employers are farther removed from their employees, meaning they are less likely to directly see all of the work being done by them. Also, under an industrialized free market, salary and wages are often set by huge company employers with little to no competition. Many people must accept these lower wages or be unemployed, making no wages. This is not to say that the free market is necessarily bad. In many ways, Alabama still relies on small businesses and agriculture. There are many ways in which the free market is fundamental to the rights we enjoy, but when a market like this gets into the hands of greedy employers with little regulations on the minimum wage and maximum workload they can give to their employees, it can be used to contribute to the economic struggles of the working class.
In Chilton County, where I am from, the economy still relies heavily on farming, particularly peaches, which play a huge role in the culture of the county. Farming in Chilton County still maintains many of the good qualities that I mentioned in the first paragraph of this section. Source: Yahoo Images
In Alabama, many people have the attitude that if they earn their money or belongings through work, then they deserve to hoard all of the benefits of it. The “bootstraps” view of work is heavily valued in Southern culture, which has its benefits, but ultimately fails to bring fair wages and labor conditions to the middle class post-industrialization. By the “bootstraps” view of work, I am referring to the saying that one can or should “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” when they are of lower economic class. This promotes the idea that working hard is the best way to move up in one’s socioeconomic class; however, people can be of lower economic class for a multitude of reasons, not limited to merely work ethic. This view of work rarely has the intended effect in industrialized fields. It also often excludes people with disabilities whose work opportunities are limited. Watch this Tedx Talk, where Antonio Valdés explains the logistical issues with this view and the statistics surrounding the issue. Additionally, in a strictly free-market worldview, it is often hard to justify social welfare programs, since funding for them must come from the hard-earned tax dollars of people who claim that they deserve their money, and go to people who they claim do not. Although this view does encourage people to work hard and pull their own weight in society, this system can often be manipulated to benefit a few people while pushing a large portion of the population underneath the poverty line.
Education
Another factor that is affecting the wealth of Alabamians is the education system. Alabama consistently ranks in the bottom half – mostly in the bottom 10 – of states in every area regarding education. This article puts some numbers to these statistics. There is no doubt that education correlates to economic mobility, and the education that Alabama students are receiving does not prepare them to compete in a national – much less international – job market. With the industrialization of the workforce, it is important that Alabama puts more resources into improving the quality of our education system if we want to grow economically.
During my research, I came across an article titled Alabama’s Education System was Designed to Preserve White Supremacy – I Should Know. It explains the history of the education system of Alabama and how – rather than designing schools for students to flourish through knowledge – the designers of the system were preoccupied trying to push a white supremacist political agenda. Effects of this can still be found in Alabama’s K-12 education system today, making Alabama school history and social studies curriculum a battleground of political ideologies rather than a place where children can gain a better understanding of their society. I highly recommend giving this article a read, as it was incredibly informative and helpful in my understanding of the pitfalls of the education system in which I was raised.
Slavery, Segregation, and Civil Rights
For many of its first decades, Alabama’s economy was fully held up by unpaid enslaved Black laborers. The soil in this region was the perfect conditions for cotton to be grown, so cotton, along with tobacco, were the main crops that were produced by these laborers. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was carried out in Alabama, the economy took a big hit. Rather than blaming themselves for not working “labor wages” into their finances, plantation owners blamed the formerly enslaved people for not working for free anymore. Slavery grounded our state’s history directly into the soil of race-based hatred, prejudice, and power imbalances from which we have never recovered. Segregation immediately followed emancipation and lasted for 91 years. Following this, Alabama was a significant site for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s. In Selma, an event called Bloody Sunday occurred when a group of police officers used whips, clubs, and tear gas to attack protesters. In Montgomery, Rosa Parks notably refused to give up her seat to a white man, for which she was arrested. In Birmingham, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” one of the most famous pieces of writing from this movement. Still today, Alabama is one of the most socially segregated states in the United States.
The emblem on the left served as the official emblem for the democratic party of Alabama from 1904-1966, appearing on all ballots, official government materials, and some government buildings. In 1966, they switched to the emblem on the right. Important note: the parties switched sides in the 1970’s, so the democratic party for which this emblem stood is now called the republican party. Source: Yahoo Images
It is unsurprising that a state so steeped in racism would have such a large percentage of people in poverty. When entire groups of people live in an area but cannot work certain jobs, access an equal education, earn equal wages, or make big purchases, the entire area suffers. Economies are reliant on the ability of people to participate in them, which is the reasoning behind stimulus checks. If people don’t, or can’t, make or spend money, a free-market economy will not be strong. Not only are people of color in Alabama denied from higher-paying jobs at a much higher rate, but when they do get these jobs, they are often paid significantly less than their white counterparts. This economic inequality leaves entire communities impoverished, more likely to find themselves without a house, and more likely to commit petty crimes for survival. This creates a harsh cycle of poverty, imprisonment, and stereotyping that is incredibly difficult to escape.
Mass Incarceration
All it takes is a quick search on the Institute for Human Rights Blog to see just how many posts have been written about Alabama’s prison system. Anybody unaware of the prison crisis would think that we are beating a dead horse. They would be shocked to hear about the horrors occurring in prisons right down the road from where many of these posts were written. Maybe then, they would understand why we write so much. Because of the wealth of information on this topic, I will link a few articles written by my colleague Kala Bhattar here if you would like to learn more:
It is not a stretch to link mass incarceration to poverty. Recidivism rates (the rate at which people who have spent time in prison return to prison) are high in Alabama. Roughly 29% of people released from prison re-offend within the first three years. The Alabama government seems to attribute this statistic to these people being morally depraved, that they are just “bad people” (whatever that means) rather than to the fact that their needs are not being provided for. The classic example of the link between poverty and crime is a parent stealing bread to feed their family, when the only other option is to go hungry. Technically, stealing is a crime, but most people would agree that the parent who steals bread for their kids should not be punished as harshly as someone who steals for other, more selfish reasons. Of course, poverty does not totally excuse or account for all crime, but there is no doubt that necessity mitigates moral culpability.
Alabama has a seven times higher incarceration rate than any founding NATO country, excluding the United States. Source.
This is not an extensive list of reasons why Alabamians are having the amount of economic struggles that they are having. Some others include: political polarization, excessive legal fines and fees, the fentanyl and opioid crisis, and the social disenfranchisement of pretty much every minoritized group. As an Alabamian, it is incredibly upsetting to see my state fall short in so many ways. It often feels like there is not much to be proud of, but it is important to remember that pride in one’s homeland does not mean blindly defending everything about the state. Pride in one’s homeland comes from genuinely caring for the communities that live here, criticizing the government when warranted, and guiding the culture to a more harmonious place. And caring, criticizing, and guiding is what we will do until our state sees better days.
In the 1840s, people with mental illnesses were generally imprisoned. That was due to the criminalization of many symptoms and a lack of societal acceptance. Although mental disability has not been a legitimate excuse for imprisonment, mental health problems are still significant in today’s prisons.
National Problems
Nationally, estimates for the percentage of inmates with a severe mental illness range from 15% to 20%. As previously mentioned, the Los Angeles County Jail was described by its sheriff in 2005 as the largest mental hospital in the country. At the Cook County Jail in Illinois, about 1/3 of the incarcerated population has a mental illness. According to the mental healthcare supervisor at the Gwinett County Detention Center in Georgia, the closure of a nearby psychiatric hospital caused the number of mentally ill inmates to skyrocket. In Polk County, Florida, the jail has a mental health unit based on psychiatric hospitals and “immediately put[s] them back on medication because the vast majority of them – the overwhelming majority of them — have decompensated.” In the U.S. Virgin Islands, individuals who were found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity – that is, who committed a crime but were determined not to be culpable due to a mental illness – are kept in the general prison population rather than being hospitalized. For that reason, the U.S. Virgin Islands has been involved in a class-action lawsuit, Carty v. Mapp, since 1994, one which shows no signs of being resolved.
These situations are exacerbated by the criminalization of symptoms and coping mechanisms of people with mental illnesses. Some people use illegal substances as a means of self-medication. Others steal food or break into buildings to find a place to sleep. Rather than investigating the reasons behind these crimes, people are incarcerated, sometimes medicated, and only occasionally given true mental health treatment. They are then released with no outside support or ways to continue accessing medications.
That is still entirely ignoring that prisons can cause mental health issues on their own. Solitary confinement, something that is widely used in American prisons, can cause or worsen symptoms of mental illness. Incarcerated people kept in solitary confinement are almost seven times as likely to harm themselves and more than six times as likely to “commit acts of potentially fatal self-harm” when compared to the general prison population.
Failures in the South
In 2017, a federal district court found that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) was providing “significantly inadequate care.” This decision came after years of litigation. The case, Braggs v. Dunn, is still ongoing almost ten years after it was first filed in 2014. Since then, little has changed in ADOC’s prisons.
An opinion given in the case mentioned Jamie Wallace and his testimony 36 times over 300 pages. Wallace was incarcerated in 2014 for the murder of his mother. He had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. He testified in December of 2016. He died of suicide ten days later while in a unit dedicated to severely mentally ill inmates. Five days prior to his suicide, a healthcare worker at the prison wrote that he was “using crisis cell/threats to get what he wants.”
Wallace was mentally ill. For that, he was punished by prison guards. He was disciplined twelve times for harming himself, six of which involved being subjected to solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is regularly criticized for being inhumane, and it is especially so for those with preexisting mental health issues. According to Solitary Watch, a non-profit dedicated to ending the overuse of solitary confinement, citing a 2014 study on the topic, “individuals placed in solitary confinement were 6.9 times more likely to commit acts of self-harm and 6.3 times more likely to commit acts of potentially fatal self-harm than people in the general population.” Adding that people with mental illnesses are more likely to harm themselves than people without paints a grim picture of what happens inside these walls.
After Wallace’s suicide, the court ordered an emergency plan to be made to prevent future suicides. That plan was too late for James David Johnson, who hung himself only a few days after Wallace.
The court also accused correctional workers of being ambivalent or actively encouraging suicide. “ADOC officers essentially called a prisoner’s bluff, and then that person attempted suicide.” During his testimony, Wallace said that a correctional officer handed him a razor blade and told him, “You want to kill yourself? Here you go. Use this.” The two parties in the case had previously settled over the issue of razor blades’ presence in crisis cells – the same kind of cell Wallace was able to hang himself in. This lack of awareness on the part of ADOC was only exacerbated by the chronic understaffing of mental health workers. In January of 2023, ADOC stopped reporting the number of deaths – both homicides and suicides – that occurred in its prisons.
In 2021, Disability Rights Mississippi, Mississippi’s federally mandated watchdog agency (protection & advocacy agency), filed suit against the Mississippi Department of Corrections due to severe mistreatment of numerous disabled inmates. One individual, who was described as having ADHD, OCD, and bipolar disorder, was refused access to his medications and, according to DRMS’s investigative report, “during suicide watch, recalls being told by a passing officer to go ahead and kill himself.” Another person with PTSD and bipolar disorder “needs… mood stabilizers. MDOC has yet to treat this offender.” The lawsuit itself, Wallace v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, reads, “DRMS has encountered many offenders who have attempted self-harm, which was ignored by MDOC staff. In some cases, the self-harm was encouraged by MDOC staff.”
Florence Supermax
A short time after Braggs v. Dunn, another lawsuit was filed for similar reasons – this time against the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, also called the ADX. Rodney Jones, who assisted in the early stages of the lawsuit and who was previously held in the ADX, told the New York Times in 2015 that a staff psychiatrist stopped the medication he took for his bipolar disorder because “We don’t give out feel-good drugs here.”
One of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit is Jack Powers. Powers was sent to the ADX after an escape attempt preempted by threats from members of the Aryan Brotherhood, some of whom he had testified against after witnessing the murder of a friend. All three men he testified against were being held at ADX Florence when Powers was transferred there. While incarcerated there, Powers “lost his mind.” He mutilated himself numerous times, including by removing his earlobes, chewing off one of his fingers, removing one of his testicles, and tattooing himself with a razor and black carbon paper dust.
Florence ADX Prison. Source: Yahoo Images
David Shelby was incarcerated for threatening President Bill Clinton after he “became convinced that God wanted him to free Charles Manson from prison.” While incarcerated, Shelby sliced off part of his finger and ate it. Herbert Perkins, another prisoner, attempted to cut his throat with a razor. After being treated, he was ordered to mop up the blood left in his cell – it had not been cleaned since he was taken to the hospital.
Conclusions
American prisons often have inhumane conditions. Those issues are compounded even further when the inmates in question have a mental illness. Prisons are unprepared to serve as psychiatric institutions, nor have they, overall, attempted to change to do so. Even so, that is what they are doing. Between the lack of adequate treatment, the negative psychological effects being incarcerated can cause, and the lack of assistance from correctional workers, it should be no surprise that rates of self-harm, suicide, and mental illness in prisons are so high.
Courts take time to process cases. This is demonstrated by many of the cases mentioned; Carty v. Mapp has been ongoing for 30 years, Wyatt v. Stickney ended in 2003, 33 years after it was first filed, and Braggs v. Dunn, one of the more recent lawsuits mentioned, is over a decade old. This is by design. A longer trial gives more opportunity for both parties to adequately present cases and, in the cases of these lawsuits, make changes. Despite that necessity, something needs to change. Mentally ill people are suffering and dying in jails and in prisons. The correctional system will not change on its own; it takes outside pressure to change things, and lawsuits, the most effective means of creating this change, take decades to be resolved. Systemic changes need to be made to how these prisons function and the societal role they play.
A quick Google search of “Alabama prison news now” will lead you to hundreds of articles detailing brutal and entirely unnecessary deaths of Alabama inmates. This is not exclusive to Alabama, it’s a trend you can find amongst most other southern states, including Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana. The UAB Institute for Human Rights already has several fantastic blog posts focusing on the injustices in Alabama prisons. Where this post differentiates from the others is in its focus on southern prisons as a whole, as well as worker’s rights within those prisons.
If you look at our country’s constitution, the 13th amendment states “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duty convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” While this amendment, along with the 14th and 15th, expanded the rights of Black Americans, the italicized portion is a perfect display of how the rights of this population are frequently given with conditions. It’s easy to jump to the conclusion that this does not just affect Black Americans; however, it’s vital to note that this group is disproportionately incarcerated. For example, in the southern United States, Black Americans are five times more likely to be incarcerated in state prisons than their white counterparts. In states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and North and South Carolina, African Americans make up 38% of the population, but 67% of the incarcerated population.
Photo of a beige building with high walls, at the top of the walls are fences with barbed wire. Source: Flickr
Within the Walls
Southern prisons and jails are notorious for being some of the worst in the country, with excessive violence and incredibly poor conditions. Southern prisons are grossly understaffed, and this leads to the intense mistreatment of incarcerated individuals. One example of this is this uncurbed time in solitary confinement. In Alabama, individuals can be placed in solitary confinement for “weeks or months at a time”, and because of understaffing they are denied their basic rights, such as showering. The overuse of solitary confinement is not uncommon in southern jails and prisons, and Black people deal with the brunt of this. Incarcerated Black individuals are eight times as likely to be put in solitary confinement and ten times more likely to be held in solitary confinement for excessive periods of time. Solitary confinement has intense physical and mental implications, and it can cause lasting damage to individuals kept alone for extended periods of time. The suicide rate for individuals kept in solitary confinement is needlessly high; in Georgia, for example, there were nine deaths by suicide from just February to April 2022. Similar to the usage of solitary confinement, in South Carolina there have been multiple extended lockdown periods, both before and during the pandemic. These extended lockdowns are the result of staffing shortages, which is a common theme in many southern prisons. One individual in a North Carolina Prison was forced to spend nine years in solitary confinement, and after their release they stated, “I feel like I am losing touch with reality…I feel helpless and abandoned, which makes me angry.”
Photo of a prison from within a cell. The walls, bars, and floors are various shades of beige. Source: Flickr
While the prison system exposes people to uncountable horrors, one that has intense financial consequences is the extensive use of unpaid or underpaid labor. Worker’s rights laws in the United States don’t apply to those who are incarcerated—incarcerated workers have no right to form unions either, so they are unable to fight for improved conditions or pay. For most jobs, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and more pay nothing for the labor, and if they do pay, it’s only cents per hour. Legally, incarcerated individuals can earn five cents a day. Turning the focus back to Black Americans, many are forced into work that can easily trigger generational trauma—required to work in fields, picking fruit and cotton (further reading on this can be found in the works of Dr. Joy DeGruy). The low wages combined with the undesirable jobs could incentive states to keep people imprisoned and working, so that they are better able to profit from of the tangible goods that incarcerated individuals are producing. Portions of payment are fed back into the state, or into the companies that are leasing the incarcerated.
Photo of a green field with rows of crops. There are large, brown trees in the background. Source: Flickr
Permanent Impacts
The financial detriment that is forced on the imprisoned is not limited to their time in jail. Ex-convicts are treated as second-class citizens, and they often have an incredibly hard time getting jobs after their time in the prison system. At least 27% of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed—which is all the more shocking when you learn this rate is higher than the unemployment rate during the Great Depression. As a reminder, the unemployment rate only includes people who are actively looking for work, so this reinforces how challenging it is for previously incarcerated individuals to support themselves after returning to the general public. This difficulty perpetuates a cycle that can be hard to break—without employment, individuals must deal with less stability and surety, and this can result in them returning to prison or jail.
Impoverished individuals are more likely to commit crimes, and, unfortunately, the jobs that are open for previously incarcerated individuals often leave them below the poverty line. This claim is not unaffected by race, as white men are the most likely to be employed full-time after imprisonment, and Black women are least likely to be employed full-time. This relates back up to previous discussion in the post, and incarceration heavily impacts minority races, and it affects them much more after their time in prison.
Conclusion
The Southern incarceration system presents challenges that can seem insurmountable; however, with appropriate attention and legislative power, positive change can be made for both current inmates and those who were previously incarcerated. One effective measure that can be taken is to Ban the Box. The Ban the Box Campaign advocates for the removal of the question “Have you ever been convicted?” from job applications, housing applications, and more. This limits employers’ and loan distributors’ ability to discriminate against individuals when making hiring or other decisions.
There are also major structural changes that need to be made, including increasing pay for prison labor, improving living conditions within prisons, and limiting the time given in solitary confinement. It is important to recognize that incarcerated individuals are people too, and that they deserve the same rights awarded to everyone in the Constitution.
An image that depicts a person holding a gun. Three angles of the world are shown next to it with a red circle over the United States. This depicts gun violence as a serious issue in the United States. Source: Yahoo Images
Gun violence has always posed a serious threat in the United States. Gun violence can come in many forms, such as homicides, suicides, accidental shootings, mass shootings, and more. It is important to notice that this blog will be about gun violence in the context of the United States. Recent decades have seen a significant spike in acts of gun violence, particularly mass shootings. Although a universally agreed-upon definition of what exactly constitutes a mass shooting does not exist, it generally entails around a minimum of four individuals being shot and/or killed. This does not have to include the perpetrator.
According to the Gun Violence Archive, well over 600 mass shootings occurred in 2023 alone. These shootings result in the lives of innocent individuals being taken, as they can occur in a wide range of places. These include places of worship (like synagogues and churches), concerts, movie theaters, grocery stores, educational institutions, parades, sports events, and more. Just six years ago, the deadliest mass shooting in United States history occurred at a country music festival in Las Vegas. This resulted in the death of 60 people and over 400 injured.
While I have not been directly affected by a mass shooting, I vividly remember hearing about mass shootings in schools since I was in elementary school. The first one was the shooting that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012. A few days after the shooting, I remember my fourth-grade teacher speaking to us about the precautions our class would have to take in the event we were to encounter an active shooter in our school. In 2018, the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting occurred when I was in 10th grade. I remember being afraid to go to school the next day. Since then, mass shootings have continued to happen each day, where innocent lives have been taken. People should not have to fear going to school, practicing in places of worship, seeing a movie in a theater, attending their favorite artists’ shows, or going to the grocery store. They should not have to plan places to hide in the event of an active shooter. This poses a number of important questions: Why is gun violence, specifically mass shootings, such a huge problem in the United States? What does this mean for United States citizens’ safety? What can be done and has been done to prevent these acts of terror?
The U.S. in Relation to Other Developed Countries
The context of mass shootings in relation to other countries is important to take into consideration when understanding the significance of this issue. In comparison to other developed countries, which are defined as states with a high Human Development Index (HDI), the United States surpasses all of them regarding the occurrence of mass shootings. According to data retrieved by Jason R. Silva from William Paterson University, “the US is the only developed country where mass shootings have happened every single year for the past 20 years.” Silva is an assistant professor in Sociology and Criminal Justice with a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice. He specializes in the area of mass shootings, media and its relation to crime, and violence in educational institutions. To find his data, Silva uses the same general definition of mass shootings mentioned earlier in this article: a minimum of four individuals either shot or injured, not including the shooter.
One of the leading causes of the United States’ high rates of mass shootings compared to other countries could be the relaxed gun laws and policies—or lack thereof. Gun control has become a heated topic of discussion among United States citizens, and the debate regarding its effectiveness has gained traction due to the heightened occurrences of mass shootings. Gun control can come in many forms, like the outright ban of specific gun models like the AR-15 and other assault-style weapons, the implementation of universal background checks, safe storage laws, or stronger requirements for those who want to purchase guns. Gun control does not necessarily mean that all guns will be eradicated from the country, which is a popular assumption among opponents of gun control.
Opponents of gun control and regulation also argue that it would violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees the “right to bear arms.” The Second Amendment possesses some relevant historical context, as it was originally intended to grant United States citizens the Constitutional right to form “a well-regulated militia” to protect their communities during the Revolutionary War. However, the context of society has changed. These state militias—while still existing in some states—do not serve the same purpose they did centuries ago. Proponents, on the other hand, assert that the protection of the Second Amendment comes at the cost of protecting people from senseless acts of gun violence.
A group of demonstrators at a March for Our Lives rally advocating for gun reform in June 2022. Source: Yahoo Images
The Role of Gun Culture
United States gun culture can also be a contributing factor to the nation’s ever-growing rise in mass shootings and gun violence. “Gun culture” refers to the specific attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and feelings that society (or any social group) possesses regarding firearms. The term was first coined by Richard Hofstadter in 1970, who published an article titled “America (United States) as a Gun Culture,” which critiqued the country’s normalization and glorification of guns. This article was far ahead of its time, and I recommend giving it a read if you’re interested in learning more about the history of the United States’ gun culture.
In the article, Hofstadter talks about the historical context of the United States’ fascination with guns. It began as early as the Revolutionary War when the Pennsylvania rifle was used by British troops. Since then, guns have become integrated into everyday life, from hunting for food to entertainment and sport. Even in modern popular culture, the depiction of guns is typically associated with famous characters like James Bond, John Wick, and “Maverick” from Top Gun. Toy guns are constantly advertised to young children—particularly young boys—as a way to establish their “masculinity.” Additionally, video games glamorizing gun violence have amassed popularity among young people. While these examples are not the sole reason gun violence has taken a toll on the country, it’s important to note their contribution to the overall gun culture in the United States.
Last semester, I took a course on Human Rights taught by Dr. Greenstein, an assistant professor in UAB’s department of Political Science and Public Administration. We had the option to create a project pertaining to any topic regarding human rights. As the issue of gun violence is a direct violation of human rights in a multitude of ways, I chose to create a photo collage depicting the sensationalizing of firearms. I intentionally used one method of finding photos for the collage to further drive the point that gun sensationalism is extremely prevalent. To no surprise, all I had to do was walk into Walmart, where I found a whole section of firearm magazines. Each of the magazines portrayed the firearms in ways that one may find appealing, with eye-catching text, edited graphics, depictions of guns with the United States flag, and more. This shows that the sale of firearms is a lucrative business, willing to draw anyone into purchasing them.
The collage I created for a Human Rights course I took last semester shows the heavy marketing perpetuated by the gun industry. This contributes to the spread of gun culture. Source: Caitlin Cerillo
Through these examples, it can be seen why guns are normalized in our country and how they can influence the number of devastating acts caused by firearms. For this reason, steps should be taken to diminish its weight. An article by the National Library of Medicine that echoes this same sentiment urges pushing a narrative that “frames gun violence as a public health issue that has consequences on the health of the general population.” The article also mentions the importance of public advocacy through movements such as March for Our Lives, which was founded in the wake of the 2018 school shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas in Parkland, Florida. March for Our Lives has advocated for the end of gun violence through protests, marches, public demonstrations, and more.
Progress in Tackling Gun Violence
While gun violence and the epidemic of mass shootings in the United States continue to be a huge problem, positive strides have been made to reduce it. September 2023 saw the country’s first Office of Gun Violence Prevention, established by the Biden administration. In October 2021, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was proposed, and by June 2022, it was signed into law by President Biden. The act aims to prevent gun violence by:
1) Offering mental health resources and guidance to state governments and schools so that mental health services are available in educational settings.
2) Implementing new gun control laws like extended background checks, implementing stricter punishments for the traffic of illegal firearms, etc.
3) Preventing funds from being used improperly and towards the provision of firearms and dangerous weapons.
President Joe Biden announcing the Office of Gun Violence Prevention in September 2023, alongside Florida Congressman Maxwell Frost and Vice President Kamala Harris. Source: Yahoo Images
Through the establishment of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the Biden administration hopes to expand upon the progress made towards preventing gun violence, like the passing of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. As of January 25, 2024, the Biden administration has announced new initiatives to promote the safe storage of firearms. Jill Biden and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona have worked together to spread awareness about how important safe storage is, especially because most firearms—approximately 76%—used in school shootings are acquired from the shooter’s home.
UAB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer committed to fostering a diverse, equitable and family-friendly environment in which all faculty and staff can excel and achieve work/life balance irrespective of race, national origin, age, genetic or family medical history, gender, faith, gender identity and expression as well as sexual orientation. UAB also encourages applications from individuals with disabilities and veterans.
